






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































. 



















































































' 


• 

























} 2~ k 

OF 3 V / 

HON. HENRY G. DAVIS, 

Of West Virginia,- 


IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1874, 



WAR CLAIMS OF WEST VIRGINIA AND ITS CITIZENS 


AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 



WASHINGTON: 

John H. Cunningham, Printer. 

1874 . 













I 









**> 
















. 


it t 






, 






































>• • • X ! ff • / A 

• ■ ( . ■ : /. 




















. 





























7 ,) ?/ f > 


WEST VIRGINIA WAR CLAIMS 


V 




SPEECH 

OP 

HON. H. G. DAVIS, OF WEST VIRGINIA, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.' 


Mr. DAVIS. If the regular morning business is through, 1 wish to be heard. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will proceed, if there be no ob¬ 
jection. 

Mr. DAVES. Mr. President, tiie Chairman of the Committee on Claims gave no¬ 
tice that he would to-day ask the Senate to consider bills reported from that commit¬ 
tee. 1, also, gave notice that l would ask the Senate to allow me to submit some re¬ 
marks to-day after the reguia • morning business was concluded, on West Virginia 
War Claims. I shall be as brief as the subject will admit. I invite the attention of 
the Senate to the bilL 1 introduced early in this session providing for the payment to 
the State an d people of West Virginia of the. sum of $500,000 to reimburse them in 
part for losses sustained by them during the late war. The bill has been read a 
second time, and is no ,v pending before the Committee on Claims, and is as follows : 

A bill to reimburse the State of West Virginia for losses Incurred by reason of the de¬ 
struction of its bridges, court-houses, school-houses, churches, turnpike roads, and 

other public property by Federal troops during the late war. 

Whereas the State of West Virginia suffered heavy losses during the late civil war 
in the destruction of bridges, court-hous -s, school-houses, churches, turnpike roads, and 
other puhlic property; an l w ureas said istate .was loyal to the Government of the 
United States, and contributed its full share toward putting down the late rebellion; 
and whereas the greater portion of said property was destroyed by Federal troops act¬ 
ing under the orders of their superiors ; and whereas said state, by reason of its heavy 
losses as aforesaid and of its being yet young in years, and having to endure a heavy 
expense in the erection of public buildings, is unable to contribute toward the rebuild¬ 
ing of said works: Therefore, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Oonyress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, and hereby di¬ 
rected, to pay to the State of vVest Virginia,upon the order of the governor of said State, 
out of anj' money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $500,000, to be 
applied to the reouildiug of the bridges,court-houses, school-houses, churches, turnpike 
roads, and other public property in said State destroyed by Federal troops by military 
orders during the late civil war. 

My remarks, however, will apply to similar bills now upon the Calendar ready 
to be acted upon by the Senate. 

SKETCH OF THE ORGANIZATION OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

A large majority of the citizens of Vest Virginia were opposed to the ordi¬ 
nance of secession, and in favor of maintaining the supremacy of the Union and 
the Constitution, and signalized their devotion to the Government by setting up 
a reorganized government as soon as possible after the passage of the secession 
ordinance in Richmond, on the 10th day of April, 1861. A thrill of excitement shook 
the country from the Alleghanies to the Ohio river when the western delegates 
returned and announced the passage of the ordinance. Three days afterward, 
on the 22 d, a mass meeting was called and held at Clarksburg, where resolutions 
were adopted calling upon the people of Western Virginia to send delegates to a 
convention to be held at Wheeling on the 13th of May following, to determine 
upon such action as might be thought best. 

The people responded to the call, and assembled in convention in Wheeling 
on the day appointed, and passed resolutions denouncing the ordinance of seces¬ 
sion as an act of treason, and providing for a convention of all the counties of 
Virginia adhering to the national Government. This convention assembled in 
Wheeling on the lltli of June following, and proceeded to reorganize the lawful 
government of the btate. This reorganized government was recognized by the 
people as the true government of the btate, and Hon. F. H. Pierpoinfc was elected 
governor. This convention also issued a call for a new State constitutional con¬ 
vention, which body was elected on the 24th of October, 1861, and met at Wheel¬ 
ing on the 26th of November following. 

Tiie consent of the Legislature of reorganized Virginia was given to the for- 
micio.i of a new State oil the 13th of May, 1832, and on the 31st of December 
tallowing President Lincoln approved the act of Congress admitting West Virgi- 





4 


nta into the Union. The new State constitution, as amended, was adopted by 
the people on the 26th of March, 1863. A general election for the new State 
government was held on the 28th of May, and on the 20th of June, 1863, the 
State of West Virginia was inaugurated at Wheeling by Hon. Arthur I. Boreman, 
my present colleague on this floor, first governor of the new State, and the assem¬ 
bled Legislature. The validity of the new State was fully recognized by act of 
Congress December, 1862. and by proclamation of the President April, 1863, and by 
Congress admitting Senators and Representatives, and by the Supreme Court of 
the United States in the case of Virginia vs. West Virginia, for the possession of 
Jefferson and Berkeley counties, which case was decided in favor of West Virginia. 

SITUATION OF WEST VIRGINIA DURING TIIE WAR. 

The people whose cause I advocate suffered much for the sake of the Republic. 
They are the men of the border, those men who during the rebellion were the 
living rampart of the Stateswliich adhered to the General Government. Some of 
them were soldiers of the United States Army, faithfully discharging their duty, 
while the Government, for whose preservation they fought, seized and used or 
destroyed their property. 

West Virginia was one of the border States during the late war, and being so, 
had to bear the brunt of hard knocks and cruel blows from both of the then con¬ 
tending armies. She was the bulwark, the fortress, interposed between the loyal 
States of the North and the opponents of the Government. Her hills and valleys 
resounded with the march of hostile armies during the whole war, and on num¬ 
berless occasions were the scenes of hard-fought battles, and were drenched with 
the blood of the best and the bravest of both armies. 

All the moral influence which she, as a State, could exercise was thrown in 
the cause of the Government. Being one of the principal theatres of action, and 
the Gibraltar of safety for the Northern States, a large number of troops was ne¬ 
cessarily kept in this State all the time. Thus it was necessary, as one of the con¬ 
sequences of war, to use her school-houses, churches, and other public buildings, 
as winter .quarters, &c , to shield the soldiery from the winter blasts, or else as 
hospitals, to protect and care for the wounded. As fuel was needed, fences, tim¬ 
ber, and other movable property were consumed. As food was needed, the re¬ 
sources of the country were used to supply the wants of the Army. As trans¬ 
portation was needed, horses, mules, and wagons were impressed and sacrificed 
for the common cause. When it became necessary to transport the heavy artil¬ 
lery and other munitions of war, as was frequently, nay daily, the case, our 
roads and pikes had to suffer. 

It was a misfortune both to the people of the South and the people of the 
North that this war broke out; but it did break out, and it raged like a flame 
upon the prairie, destroying everything within its reach. It swept over our State 
like a deadly hurricane, it was our lot to have visited upon us all the evils, all 
tHe horrors of war; all the effusion of blood, the desolation of families, the ra¬ 
pine, the acts of violence, the conflagrations incident to war. The two armies 
surged backwards and forward through our State like the ebbing and flowing of 
the tide, tirst advancing, then retreating. Life, liberty, property, all went down 
before the storm. Ties of kindred—social, domestic, and religious ties were 
snapped asunder. Our cultivated lields were laid waste, our homes destroyed, 
our industrial pursuits interrupted—nay, almost abandoned. Many of onr people 
were driven away from their homes; their cattle, horses, and other stock were 
taken, their houses burned, and everything they had on earth destroyed. They 
were left without means, without homes, without household furniture, suffering 
for the necessaries of life, and in some cases utterly destitute. This is but a faint 
picture of some of.the horrors of war. Our neighbors, who dwelt in affluence 
and safety while we stood sentry over their treasures and loved ones, little knew 
the stifle rings and privations we were called upon to undergo. I am not painting 
harrowing scenes in order to work upon the sympathies of Senators, but am sta¬ 
ting plum truths, which the history of the late war will fully corroborate. 

CLAIM UNEQUAL TO THE LOSSES. 

llie amount claimed in this bill is not at all equal to the losses actually sus¬ 
tained, bnt being a young State, and consequently modest, and taking into con¬ 
sideration the present financial condition of our Government, we do not demand 
as large an amount as we are legally and justly entitled to, but simply ask for 
the comparatively small sum named in the bill assume slight compensation for 
losses sustained by our people at the hands of the Union armies. 

I will not weary the Senate, Mr. President, with any attempt to give the losses 


5 


N 


* 


in detail, suffered by loyal citizens of our State, at the hands of the Federal troops. 
Every Senator knows how large was the demand of the Army for buildings 
as store-houses, for hospitals, and for winter quarters for officer? and pvhates. 
Every one knows how forests were felled, and the timber and fences used for 
fuel, fortifications, and bridges. Every one knows how often, in the ease of a 
retreat, it became necessary to destroy costly bridges, the property ox the State, 
and public buildings, in which commissary stores and ammunition were stored, in 
order to prevent their falling into the hands of and becoming useful to the enemy. 
The sufferings of our State in these particulars are matters of history with which, 
doubtless, every Senator in this Chamber is conversant. 

WHO OUGHT TO PAY THE LOSSES? 

The question presented for determination is, wlio ought to bear the losses in¬ 
curred by loyal men at the hands of the Government in the prosecution of the 
late war, the Government who took property and used it for its own advantage, 
or the loyal State or party from whom the property was taken, and who received 
no benefit, or compensation therefor, save the benefit, in common with all others, 
of protection? Most unquestionably the Government ought to bear the loss. 
The sacrifice of property by the loyal Shite or owner for the benefit of his Gov¬ 
ernment should be compensated for by that Government by all means, and at the 
first, opportunity. The obligation to pay a faithful and law abiding citizen for prop¬ 
erly which the Government'appropriates to its own use. and receives the benefit, of , is 
an obligation as sacred in time of war as in time of peace; and no matter wit h v hom 
the war is waged, it is not waged with the parties from whom you take it. 

W ar authorizes a government to possess itself of what belongs to the enemy, 
by confiscation, appropriation, or wliat you like, and without compensation ; but 
it does not authorize a government to confiscate or appropriate the property of 
its loyal citizens without due compensation therefor. All law, wnether in time 
of war or time of peace, among civilized nations at h ast, recognizes the principle 
that he who wantonly does an injury to a friend is bound to repair the damage, 
or make adequate satisfaction if the damage be irreparable. 

It is a principle—a sacred principle—incorporated in the great fundamental law 
of this country, that the Government or its properly constituted agents or author¬ 
ities shall in no case take private property for public use without due compensa¬ 
tion. The Government can never, with honor, deprive a citizen of property so 
long as the citizen is faithful to his obligations to the Government, without pay¬ 
ing him compensation therefor. While the citizen is faithful, while lie holds his 
allegiance, while he discharges the obligation of citizenship, the theory of our 
Government is, and the principles of justice and right are, that the Government 
shall bring to bear all its powers to the end that citizens receive no detriment that 
shall not be redressed. This obligation is as lasting as the Government, and as 
sacred as the eternal principles of justice. 

LAW BEARING ON THE SUBJECT. 

Let us examine into the law on this question for a few moments, and see what 
the recognized' authorities say on this subject. Vattel, in his Law of Nations, 
says : 

such damages are of two kinds, those done by the State itself, ovt.he sovereign, and 
those done by the enemy. Of the first kind some are done deliberately, and by way of 
precaution, as when a field, a house, a garden, belonging to a p 'ivat e person, is taken for 
the purpose of erecting on the spot a town rampart or any other piece of fortification, 
or when his standing corn or his store-houses are destroyed to prevent their being of 
use to the enemy. Such damages are to be made r/ood to ihs individual) who should bear only 
his quota of the loss. 

Vattel, it will be seen, divides the damages into two kinds, accidental and de¬ 
signed. It is not the purpose of this bill or our people to demand compensation 

* for accidental damages, because in a state of war the party clothed with the right 
to make war has to march his troops through the country by the best route pos¬ 
sible to accomplish bis purpose, and the accidental damages resulting from such 
march are the necessary consequences of the war, and must be borne by the peo¬ 
ple without compensation therefor. But when we come to consider the second 
division, it is an entirely different matter. While it is acknowledged that if it is 
necessary to march through a growing crop of grain in order to secure a legiti¬ 
mate end and thereby impair its value, no compensation can be justly or legally 
claimed therefor; yet if, on the other hand, the troops are in camp, and under 
orders to confiscate the corn for provender or else cut it down in order to keep an 

• enemy from approaching under Its cover, it must be admitted that damages lie. So 



6 


it may be set down as one of the acknowledged legal maxims of war, that what¬ 
ever the Government takes from a loyal subject for the more efficient prosecution 
of a war, whether it be forage, timber for fortifications, houses removed or de¬ 
stroyed, or anything else, should be compensated for. 

Says Grotius, (page 348, volume 3, Campbell’s Grotius:) 

The property of subjects is so far under the eminent control of the state, that the 
state, or the sovereign who represents it, can use that property, or destroy it, or alienate 
it , not only in cases of extreme necessity, which sometimes allow individuals the liberty of 
infringln giipon the property of others, but on all occasions w here the public good is c< n- 
censed, to"which the original framers of society intended that private interest t-hop Id. 
give w'av. But when that is the case, it is to be observed tlie stai e is bound to repair tho 
loss as of individuals at the public expense, in aid of which the sufferers have, contributed 
their due proportion. Nor will the state, though unable to repair tlie losses for the 
present, be finally released from the debt, but whenever she possesses the means of re¬ 
pairing the damages the dormant claim and obligation will be revived. 

And he again says : 

The king may in two ways deprive his subjects of their rights, either by way of pun¬ 
ishment or by virtue of his eminent power. Hut if lie does co in t lie last way, it must be 
for some public advantage, and then the subject ought to receive, if possible, a just sat¬ 
isfaction for the loss be suffers out of the common stock. 

Mr. William Whiting has also discussed this subject with direct reference to 
the liabilities of the United States, growing out of the late war. He asserts the 
same doctrine, namely: 

If the private property of loyal citizens, inhabitants of l 03 T al states, is appropriated 
by our military forces for the purpose of supplying our armies and to aid in prosecuting 
hostilities against a public enemy, the Government is bound to give a reasonable com¬ 
pensation therefor to the owner. 

Again lie says: 

When individuals are cglled upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of 
the community, justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; otherwise 
public burdens would be shared uuequally. 

Again he says : 

Public use does not require that the property taken shall be actually used. It may be 
disused, removed , or destroyed , and destruction of private property may be the best public 
use it can be put to. Suppose a bridge owned by a private corporat ion to be so located, 
as to endanger our forts upon the banks of a river. To demolish that bridge for military 
purposes would be to appropriate it to public use. 

This view of the case is fully sustained by the opinion of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the case of Mitchell vs. Harmony, (13 Howard, page 134.) 
This case originated out of a transaction during our war with Mexico. Mitchell 
was an officer of the United States Army in that war, and destroyed the property 
of Harmony, in the Mexican province of Chihuahua, to prevent it from falling 
into the possession of the enemy, and suit was brought by Harmony to recover 
the value of that property. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of 
the court, says: 


And where the owner has done nothing to forfeit his rights, every public officer is 
bound to respect them, whether he finds the property in a foreign or hostile country or 

in his own. 

There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may occasionally bo 
taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from foiling imo the hands of the publio 
enemy, and also where a military officer charged with a particular duty may impress 
private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably in 
eueh cases the Government is bound to make full compensation to the owner. 


The same principles are enunciated in the case of Grant vs. The United States, 
(reported in first Motx and Huntington’s Court of Claims Reports.) Judge Wil- 
mot, the author of the famous “ Wilmot proviso,” in pronouncing the opinion in 
this case, says: 

It may safely be assumed as the settled and fundamental law of Christian and civil¬ 
ized states that governments are bound to make just indemnity to the citizen or subject 
whenever private property is taken for the public good, convenience, or safety. 

This was a case in which Grant brought a claim against the Government for 
property destroyed in Arizona by the United States troops in July, 1861, to pre¬ 
vent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. • 

In the syllabus of the case the following principles arc laid down: 


There is no discrimination to be made between property taken to be used and oron- 
erty taken to be destroyed. 1 1 

It is no defense tbat the circuulstances must have rendered the property valueless to 
the owner if the officer had not destroyed it. It is the imminence of danger that gives 
the state a right to destroy property ; bht the certainty of danger does not relieve the 
state from liability for the property which it takes to destroy. 

The doctrines of Jaw set forth by the foregoing eminent writers and learned 
Judges are so plain and to the point* that it is needless for me to do more than 


announce them without comment. The essence of the opinions and decisions 
seems to he contained in the plain proposition of law, that the Government is 
hound to compensate its loyal citizens for all property taken from th< m by the 
Government, or used or destroyed by the Government in the prosecution of the 
war, of which the Government received the benefit. This is what the bill con¬ 
templates. This is all we ask for. 

DAMAGES INFLICTED BY THE CONFEDERATES- 

We do not claim that the Government is under any obligations to indemnify 
us for damages sustained through the act or actions of its enemies, though even 
in this ease there is abundant precedent to justify a claim of this kind; and in 
the particular case of West Virginia compensation ought really to be made her 
for damages inflicted by the enemies of the Government ; for she by her .adher¬ 
ence to the Government thereby threw herself into the very heart of the conflict 
and saved to the loyal States many times the amount claimed in this bill. But I 
will not discuss this proposition, as West Virginia waives all right of damages ac¬ 
cruing to her by reason of injuries at the hands of the enemies of the Govern¬ 
ment, and simply asks that the Government which she helped b} r means and 
men to keep in tact, shall pay for the property it took and converted to its own 
use or destroyed. 

ACCIDENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR. 

Xor do we claim that losses incurred by general measures, such ns*the block¬ 
ade, the act of emancipation, the march of an army, the destruction of crops, <fcc., 
on a field of battle while in the midst of conflict, or any, other accidental conse¬ 
quence of war, should be made good to loyal men who happened to incur them. 
These are the. misfortunes of war, which cannot be helped and of which a true 
patriot does not complain. For the accidents of war, for the destruction which 
may be occasioned by the march of armies, by battles, by the capture of towns, 
by the resistance of an enemy when you are endeavoring to capture a town, no 
nation in the world could be called upon justly to pay. They are like destruction 
by fire, by the lightning, by a flood, &c., and are likened in the law to the acts of 
God. On whomsoever these damages fall, whether loyal or disloyal, the person 
who suffers the loss must submit to his misfortune. It would be the extreme of 
foolishness to contend otherwise. 

TEIE RIGHTS OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN INSURRECTIONARY STATES. 

I will not attempt, Mr. President, to argue the proposition so often asserted 
and so elaborately discussed in this Chamber as to the right of the Government 
to appropriate for war purposes, without .compensation, the property of any and 
all residents of the States declared in insurrection, regardless of their sentiments 
toward the Government; for I do not think it enters into the case I am now pre¬ 
senting. Yet, while not arguing the proposition, and while admitting that when 
in the midst of a great civil struggle, such as we have passed through, it is not 
incumbent upon tlie Government, nor is it. expected of it, to pause to*inquire who 
were its friends and who its enemies. I hold that a loyal citizen of Virginia , Lou¬ 
isiana, (&■ any other insurrectionary State , was as much entitled to protection of life 
and property, and, to be compensated for property taken or appropriated by the Gov¬ 
ernment , as a, citizen of New York, Massachusetts, or any other Northern State. 

In this connection I desire now to call the attention of Senators to a case re- 
portedupon at the second session of the Forty-second Congress by the Committee on 
Claims, of which I bad the honor to be a member, and I desire especially to direct 
attention to letter and indorsement of then General, but now President Grant, 
filed with the papers in the case. The case was as follows : James Cameron was 
the owner of a lot of ground, containing about forty acres, located in the suburbs 
of Chattanooga, Tennessee, on which was a dwelling used as a family residence. 
When the Union armies, under command of Major-General W. S. Rosecrans,eirteii*ed 
that city, this property was taken possession of by them and used for army pur¬ 
poses. Fortifications were erected on the land, the timber on the land cur off 
and used for fuel, and the out-houses and fencing destroyed. The committee 
found that the claimants, Mr. and Mrs. Cameron, were loyal, and had been dam¬ 
aged to the amount of $10,000, and reported a bill for the payment of that amount, 
recommending its passage. The bill afterward passed tlie Senate. The letter 
and indorsement of General Grant were as follows : 

[Letter.] 

Headquauteus AUM1IS or the United States, 

City JPoirtt, Virginia, Avgvil 9, ]?G4. 

Mrj.OsAR Your lettfer of the 8th of Italy n-as duiy rtceiitU, Lut aofc so 


8 


promptly answered.. I know yours to be a case where prompt payment should be made, 
and am willing to so indorse your claim. 1 believe your property at Chattanooga has 
been appraised by a board of officers. If so, send me the proceedings of the board, and 
I will make my indorsement and return them to you. If you have no such evidence of 
the claim, inform me, and 1 will order a board to assess it, and will indorse the proceed¬ 
ings. This will be the first step toward a collection. 

Yours, truly, U. S. GRANT. 

Mrs. Cameroh. 

[indorsement.] Headquarters armies op the United States, 

City Point , Virginia , October 25, 1864. 

I know the property within described and the parties owning it well. Mr. Cameron 
and his wife have been'unflinching friends of the Government from the beginning of our 
troubles to the present day. There are no more thoroughly loyal people anywhere in 
the North, and they are entitled to protection and pay for their property converted to 
Government use. What is now known as Fort Cameron, Chattanooga, was the private 
property of Mr. Cameron. From its elevated and commanding position, it had to be 
taken and fortified. By this means the entire property, with improvements, has been 
entirely destroyed for private use. I would recommend that the property be purchased, 
at a fair valuation, for Government use. U. S. GRANT. General. 

It will be noticed that, in this case the property was located in a State known 
as one of the insurrectionary States, and that General Grant indorsed the claim as 
a just one and recommended its payment. 

This fully commits the President to the payment to loyal persons for property 
taken or damaged by United States troops in insurrectionary States, and the act 
for the relief of the Kentucky University and many other similar acts, signed by 
the President, fully commit him to such payment to persons in States not in re¬ 
bellion. 

But the question of damages to loyal persons in insurrectionary States has 
nothing to do with the claim of West Virginia. The loyalty of our section of 
country was recognized and acknowledged by the General Government in the 
early part of the war, even while our State was a part of the State of Virginia. 

I do not understand that the late war was waged against States, as States in 
their sovereign capacity, but against such of the inhabitants only as were in a state 
of insurrection, resisting the laws. It is a historical fact that all through the war 
a distinction was preserved in the legislation of Congress and the proclamations 
of the President between the loyal and disloyal inhabitants of the States and parts 
of States in rebellion. 

LOYALTY OF WEST VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE WAR. 

As to our own section of country, I will cite extracts from some of the procla- 
tions of President Lincoln in regard to the States in insurrection. In his procla¬ 
mation of August 16, 1861, he says : 

In pursuance of an act of Congress, approved July 13,1861, l do hereby declare the 
inhabitants of the said States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Ten¬ 
nessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, except,— 

And here I ask the special attention of the Senate— 

except, the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia [the State of West Virginia 
was not formed until 1863] lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and of such other 
parts of that. State and the other States hereinbefore named as may maintain a loyal 
adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be from time to time oocupied and 
controlled by the forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of the insurgents, 
are in a state of insurrection against the United States, &c. 

President Lincoln also, in a proclamation dated July 1, 1862, in pursuance of 
an act of Congress passed June 7, 1862, in which it was‘made the duty of the Pres¬ 
ident to declare, on or before the 1st day of July then next following, in what 
States and parts of State insurrection existed, expressly excepted the counties 
comprising West, Virginia. 

lie also in a proclamation issued April 20, 1863. revoking certain exceptions 
made in a former proclamation, expressly excepted the counties of Virginia, desig¬ 
nated as West Virginia. 

So you will see that the President of the United States, in every proclamation 
of insurrection, was careful to make a distinction in favor of the State of West 
Virginia, and justly so. 

PROMISES MADE TO OUR PEOPLE. 

. President Lincoln, in his proclamation of April 15. 1861, appealed to all loyal 
citizens, wherever situated, to lend their aid in maintaining the honor, integrity, 
and existence of the Union. He declared that in the effort to re-establish its su¬ 
premacy the utmost care would be observed to avoid any devastation, anv destruc¬ 
tion of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceable citizens in 
anj part of the country. J his looked as if it was the intention of the Government 
to protect loyal persons in their property, no matter where located. 


9 




During: the late war the Commander-in-chief of our armies issued “instruc¬ 
tions for the government of the armies of the United States in the field,” from 
which I quote three sections : 

34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other es¬ 
tablishments of an exclusively charitable chaiv.oter, to establishments of education, or 
foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, acad¬ 
emies of learning, or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific char, 
actor—such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 3! . 

(This paragraph, (31,) recites what a victorious army may appropriate in time 
of war.) 

37. The United States acknowledge and protect in hostile countries occupied by them 
religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, espe¬ 
cially those of women ; and t he sacredness of domestic relations. Offences to the con¬ 
trary shall he rigorously punished. 

38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offences of the owner, can be . 
seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army 
of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause re¬ 
ceipts to he given, whieh may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. 

These rules, it will be seen, are applicable to the country of an enemy ; how 
much more so then, to the country of a friendly subject? If an enemy is entitled 
to such consideration, why should not a loyal man expect to be protected in his 
rights? 

General George B. McClellan, when he entered Western Virginia in May, 1861, 
at the beginning of the war, issued a proclamation and address “ to the Union 
men of Western Virginia,” dated May 26, 1861, from which 1 take some brief ex¬ 
tracts to show the specific promises made by the Government to our people : 

You have now shown, under the most adverse circumstance*, that the great mass of 
the people of Western Virginia are tiue and loyal to that beneficent Government under 
which we and our lathers have lived so long. * * * I have ordered t roops to cross 

the Ohio River. They come as your friends and brothers, as enemies only to the armed 
rebels who are preying upon you. Your homes, your families, and your property are 
safe under our protection. 

Again, in a proclamation and address “to the inhabitants of Western Vir¬ 
ginia/’ dated .June 23, 1861, among other things lie said : 

The proclamation issued by me under date of May 26, 1861, (referring to the above 
proclamation,) will be strictly maintained. Your houses, families, property, and all 
your rights will be religiously respected. We are enemies to none but armed rebels and 
those voluntarily giving them aid. 

He also issued an order to his soldiers dated Grafton, Virginia, June 25, 1861, 
in which he said : 

Bear in mind that you are in the country of friends, not of enemies; that you are. 
here to protect, not to destroy. * * * Remember that I have pledged my word to the 
people of Western Virginia that their rights in person and property shall be respected. 

1 ask every one of you to make good this promise in its broadest sense. We come here 
to save, not to upturn. ' 

The Government has committed itself in this matter, and it is a late day now 
to say. “ Well, we thought it necessary and wise, in order to establish our su¬ 
premacy, to assure those of you in the border and Southern Slates who remained 
loyal, especially those of you who acted as the breast-works, as it were, of the 
Northern States, that you should be protected in your liberties and property; 
but now that, the war has been waged, and we have come out of the conflict vic¬ 
torious, we choose to ignore your sufferings, your loyalty, your services, your 
sacrifices; we choose to forget our manifold promises of protection and redress. 

It was all’very well when the Union was in danger, when the fate of the nation 
was trembling in the balance; hut now that the affair has been decided, what 
matters to us what you have suffered or sacrificed; what matters to us whether 
you crave your all to help save us? You can be of no further use to us ; therefore 
we ignore and disclaim you. What matter to us that, for the sake of your devo¬ 
tion, you braved insolence, outrage, and persecution; what matter that you en¬ 
dured" confiscation, conflagration, exile, and often death? Is this the policy that 
will make this nation the shining light in the galaxy of nations that its founders 
intended it should be? I think not. 

HOW THE LOYALISTS OF THE SOUTH SUFFERED. 

The mission of war is to kill, capture, and destroy. Tt aims to inflict upon 
the enemy the greatest amount of mischief possible. To do this it sometimes 
becomes necessary to ruthlessly destroy the property of friend and foe alike, as 
in the memorable march of General Sheridan through the valley of the Shenan¬ 
doah in 1864, and the march of General Sherman to the sea-coast. 

As an apt illustration of the manner in which the loyal people of the border 





10 


had to suffer, I will refer to the raid through the valley of the Shenandoah during 
the fall of 1864. General Sheridan, in his letter to General Grant, dated “Wood- 
stock, Virginia, October 7, 1804,” says : 

On moving back to tills point, tlio whole country, from the Bine Eidgre lo the North 
Mountain, has been made untenable for a rebel army. 1 have destroyed over two thous¬ 
and barns tilled with wheat and hay and farming implements; overseventy mills 'filled 
with 11 nr and wheat; have driven in front of the Army over four thousand head of 
stock, and have killed and issued to the troops not less than three lliousand sheep. 
This destruction embraces the Luray Valley and Tittle Fort Valley, as well us the main 
valley, a largo number of horses have been obtained, a proper estimate of which I 
cannot now make. 

The historian tells us that “whatever of grain and forage had escaped appro¬ 
priation or destruction by one or another of the armies which had so frequently 
etiased each other up and down this fertile and productive vallej^ was now given 
to the torch. Some of it was the property of men who not only adhered to the 
Union but were lighting to uphold it.” 


JUSTICE OF THE CLAIM. 

The losses of private property on the part of citizens faithful to the Govern¬ 
ment, and of which the Government has received the benefit, ought to be borne, 
as the expense of raising and supporting armies is borne, not by the few who are 
forced by the fortunes of war temporarily to sustain them, but by the whole 
people. Certainly no one will deny that it is the spirit and intent of the organic 
law of the land that the burdens of Government shall be borne alike by the whole 
people, and that its benefits shall be shared alike by all who bear it true allegiance. 

1 cannot see wherein the forcible taking of properly from a loyal man in a 
border State, at a time when the necessities of the Army demanded it, differs 
from the peaceable taking of the property of a man in a Northern State, in so far 
as compensation is concerned. If the supplies had not been taken from the 
country through which the troops were passing they would have to have been 
purchased elsewhere, because an army cannot be maintained without means of 
transportation, food and shelter for the men, forage for the horses, &c. If pur¬ 
chased^ most undoubtedly vouchers would have been given and payment made, 
if not purchased, iE not on hand in the commissary or quartermaster department 
at the time needed, they would have to be procured from the surrounding country. 
The only difference, if any exists, is that in one case there is an express promise 
to pay, and in the other case the promise is implied in the taking. I take it our 
Government does not claim to be a freebooter, and the obligation to pay is as 
binding in honor and law in one case as the other. 

But the question may he asked, whore are your vouchers? iAid not the United 
States, officers give the loyal parties from whom they .took' this property somethin <r 
to show for it, some paper or voucher by which they* could prove their claims when 
they came to receive payment? No; in most cases they did not. In the nature 
of the case the emergencies of the Army often forbade the delay of a formal re¬ 
quisition, while they equally necessitated an immediate supply of its wants. And 
frequently, when supplies had been formally taken, the sudden movement of the 
Army prevented the execution of proper vouchers The needs of a large army in 
active movement brooked no delay. On a forced march the cavalry, for instance, 
could not afford to wait until fresh horses could be regularly bought, or impressed' 
or proper receipts given. And property was often taken when there was no one 
present authorized to give a voucher. 

The value of such private properly appropriated , used,. or destroyed by the Gov¬ 
ernment. and of which the whole country received the benefit . is as much a part of the 
public debt as rf it were a five- twenty or seven-thirty bond of the United States and 
the obligation rs as binding, morally and legally . to pay it. A proposition to repu¬ 
diate the national debt would be scorned by this nation, and, in my opinion the 
national honor would in the end suffer just as much, if the just war claims of loval 
people are repudiated. “ " 

It is to be remembered, sir, that the citizens of our State contributed of their 
money, in the shape of taxes and otherwise, for the support of the Government 
in the prosecution of the war; they were subject, to draft and to do military duty 

orthern States, and in all respects occupied the smm’ 


as were the citizens or the Nor 


... , 4 . ~ t , occupied the same 

position toward the Government as did the citizens of New York or Massachusetts 
Why, them should they be discriminated against? 

It is simply prepoet er< us to say that there is any justice in refusing to pay a 
loyal man in the South for his property deliberately taken by the Government- 
where, under tlio same circumstances, we would pay a man living m the KertfeJ 


without raising the question of loyalty or disloyalty, for his property. For my 
part I cannot subscribe to any such doctrine. 

The Government, in its relations to the people, may be likened to a parent in 
bis relation to a child. It is as much the, duty of the. Government to see that the 
people who recognize its authority and give it their allegiance are protected in “/?/«, 
liberty , and property as it is the duty of a parent to provide for and protect a du¬ 
tiful child. No government can expect to maintain its suay in the hearts of the peo¬ 
ple unless it exercises a watchful and fostering care over them. And no Govern¬ 
ment can expert its people to do justice toward it , unless it metes out equal and exact 
justice to its people. 

This is a just claim, a legal claim, a moral claim against the Government of 
the United States for property it has taken, and the obligation to pay this and 
similar claims is as strong and binding as the obligation to redeem the Govern¬ 
ment’s promises to pay, or an individual’s. It is no answer to the justice of the 
claim to say that the Government cannot a fiord to pay. The Government ought 
only to inquire if the claim be just and right, and if so, to allow it, and provide 
the means of payment; and if the means are not at haud now, let it. be acknowl¬ 
edged now and paid when means are at band. 

PRECEDENTS. 

As to precedents, they could he cited In abundance, and to sustain a much 
weaker claim than the one I am now presenting. As my remarks will be more 
protracted than I intended. I cite but a few. 

It is a well-settled principle in law and justice that if a, part of a cargo of a ves¬ 
sel is thrown overboard, or destroyed , to save the balance , the entire cargo must pay 
the loss Again , if during afire in a city or town , a house or houses are blown up 
or in any way destroyed ', believing this might save other property , by stopping the 
fire , the city or town must pay for the house or property destroyed , though it is cer¬ 
tain the same property would have been burned if not destroyed. 

Congress, in 1816, p issed “an ant to authorize the payment for property lost, cap¬ 
tured, or destroyed by the enemy, while in the militmy service of ilie United States, and 
for other purposes,” (Statutes at Large, volume 3, page 261,) in which it was provided 
(section 5) “ that where any property has been impressed or taken by public authority 
for the use or subsistence of the Army, during the late war, and the same shall have 
been destroyed, lost, or consumed, the owner of such property shall be paid the value 
thereof, deducting therefrom the amount which had been paid or may be claimed for the 
use and risk for the same, while in die service aforesaid.” 

But the principle I am contending for was recognized long before the passage of 
this act. On the 13tli day of April, 1702, an act was passed granting compensa¬ 
tion to the trustees of the public grammar school and academy of Wilmington, 
Delaware, for the use and occupation of the said school, and damages done to the 
same by the troops of the United States during the revolutionary war. (Statutes, 
volume 6, page 8.) 

An act was passed on the IGth of April, 1800, for the relief of Rhode Island 
College, for injuries done to and compensation for the occupation of the edifice 
of said college from the 10th of December, 1770, to the 10th of April,*1780, by 
the troops of the United States, and from the 20th of June, 1780, to the 20th of 
May, 17 82, by the troops of France, co-operating in the defense of the United 
States; in the first instance as a barracks, in the second as a military hospital. 
(Statutes, volume 6, page 40.) 

The relief granted in this act was recommended by Alexander Hamilton, then 
Secretary of the Treasury, who, in his report thereon, dated January 31, 1795, said j 

It is the opinion of the Secretary, as expressed on former occasions, that in this and 
all similar cas-'s affecting the inter**«t» of literature, indemnification and compensation 
ought to be made. (Claims, page 193.) 

March 1,1815, an act was passed to compensate William H. Washington for the 
value of a house situated near the west end of the Potomac bridge, which was 
used as a depot for public stores, and was destroyed by order of a United States 
officer to prevent the stores falling into the hands of the British during the war 
of 1812. (Statutes, volume C, page 151; Claims, page 44G.) 

April 2G, 1816, an act was passed to audit and settle the claim of the supervi¬ 
sors of the county of Clinton, New York, for the destruction of the court-house 
of said county by order of a Federal officer. (Statutes, volume 0, pages 104,1G5.) 

April 7, 1030, an act was passed appropriating money to pay Hubert La Croix, 
of the (then) Territory of Michigan, for the destruction of his dwelling-house by 
th6 British and Indians while In the military occupation of the United States* 
(Statutes) volume 6) page 412.) 


12 


March 2, 1833, an act was passed to compensate the heirs of Thomas Froth- 
ngham, deceased, for certain buildings in Charlestown, Massachusetts, which 
were burned dui’ing the revolutionary war, by order of General Putnam. The 
buildings were burned to prevent their being used as a shelter by the British 
troops. (Statutes, volume 6, page 547.) 

July 2, 1836, an act was passed to remunerate the heirs of Nathaniel Canada 
for burning of a toll-house and bridge aeross the Niantic river, in Connecticut, in 
1814, by the British, while they were occupied by the troops of the United States. 
(Statutes, volume 6, page 669.) 

April 20,1838. an act was passed appropriating $3,000 to Calvert county, Mary¬ 
land, to indemnify her for the destruction of her court-house by the British in 
•be war of 1812, while the same was in the occupancy of the United States. 
(Statutes, volume 6, page 71J.) 

In June, 1872, an act was passed allowing Joseph Segar $15,000, the balance 
due him after deducting what he had heretofore received for the use and occupa¬ 
tion of his farm in Elizabeth county, Virginia, by the Army of the United 
States during the late rebellion. (Statutes, volume 17, page 670.) 

In January, 1873, Congress passed a law authorizing the Secretary of the 
Treasury to pay the heirs of John Minor Botts the sum of $1,990.16, in full of 
balance for injuries done or committed by the troops of the United States to the 
land of John Minor Botts, deceased, the timber, fences, and other fixtures thereon. 
Mr. Botts had been paid $14,870 68 June 1, 1865, by the Quartermaster’s Depart¬ 
ment. (Statutes, volume 17, page 79.) 

And so I might go on until 1 both wearied myself and exhausted the patience 
of the Senate. The cases resulting from the late war and acted on from time 
to time by this body and the House of Representatives are fresh enough, doubt¬ 
less, in the mind of every Senator present, and it would be but an unnecessary 
waste of time for me to enumerate them. I believe these acts to have been 
right in principle and sanctioned bylaw, and commend Congress for their pas¬ 
sage. While I believe our bill is strong enough in its own merits to insure its 
passage, yet I cite these precedents to show that I am contending for no new 
principle, but for an old established one, such a one as it has been the uniform 
practice of this Government to conform to from time immemorial. It will be 
noticed that most of the cases cited are similar to the class of cases for which 
compensation is claimed in the bill. 

Let us glance for a moment at what has been done by some other nations to¬ 
wards compensating those who befriended them in their wars, and then I will 
have done with this branch of the subject. 

During the war of the Revolution the tories, as they were commonly called, 
or the adherents of the British Crown, suffered at the hands of the Continental 
Army. Some were driven from their homes and their estates confiscated. The 
war terminated in favor of the Americans. The injured tories appealed to Par¬ 
liament for compensation. The result of their appeal is thus told by Sabine, in 
his American Loyalists, (page 111 :) 

The amount of losses according to the schedules rendered, was £8,026,045, of which the 
sum of £3.292,45) was allowed. From this sum the deductions which have been men! ioned 
(made from claims exceeding £10,000) were about £180,000; leaving for distribution, 
nearly fifteen and a half millions of dollars. The Loyalists then were well cared 
for. * * * * Besides the allowance of fifteen and a half millions of dollars in mone 3 ! ', 
numbers received considerable annuities, half pay as military officers, large grants of 
land, and shared with other subjects in the patronage of the Crown. 

It will be noted that this relief was granted, not "property of which their 
own government bad despoiled them, but for property which had been taken 
from them or destroyed by our troops and people. 

Even France, although almost impoverished at the close of the Fran co-Prus¬ 
sian war, made provision for such of her subjects as had been injured. We quote 
from a learned and distinguished jurist, a member of this body, Judge Hojve, 
who as the then chairman of the Committee on Claims of the Senate, in Feb¬ 
ruary, 1 R 73, submitted an able and exhaustive report—one that in my opinion 
is unanswerable—reviewing the objections of President Grant to the act passed 
for the relief of J. Milton Best. 

Judge Howe in his report says : 

In September. 1871, immediately upon the close of the Franco-German war, France, 
although defeated and subjected to the payment of a fine of 3,000,000,00' of francs to her 
conquerors, did' not ask to avoid the obligation of making compensation to her despoiled 
subjects. Accordingly the National Assembly provided not only tor the payment of all 
rivate damages inflicted by the French authorities, but also provided for the repa>- 
tnt of ail exactions made upon French subjects in the name of taxes by the German 


13 


Authorities. The same decree appropriated 103 000,000 of francs, to be placed at once in 
the hands of the ministers of the interior and of finance, to be apportioned between the 
most necessitous victims of the war, and appropriated a further sum of 6.090,000 of francs, 
to be distributed by the same ministers among those who suffered the most in the opera¬ 
tions attending the attack made by the French army to gain entrance into Paris. 

" AMOUNT OP THESE WAR CLAIMS. 

Some say that the recognition of such a claim as this and similar claims will 
open the flood-gates of the Treasury, and that the nation will be bankrupted. 
When a war claim is presented, they put on their magnifying glasses, and con¬ 
jure up similar claims to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. 1 do 
not think, from my observation and research into this matter, that the amount of 
these claims will be so enormously large. I think when we talk about thousands 
of millions and an infinite draft on the Treasury, we are talking at random. 
But even admit ting the truth of the assertion, 1 still hold that the justice of my posi¬ 
tion is not afV.;cted by it. While I favor economy in all directions and in all mat¬ 
ters pertainlngto disbursements from the public treasury; while I favor an impar¬ 
tial and rigid examination into every claim , of whatever nature , presented against 
the Government , yet I am not one of those who contend that we are to refuse to do 
justice because, it involves the expenditure of money. 

I believe, however, that $25,000,000 will cover, and more than cover, every le¬ 
gitimate claim, from all sources, for property taken or used by the Federal Army 
belonging to loyal citizens and appropriated for the use of the Army, or used or 
destroyed for the benefit of the Government, especially after the close scrutiny 
to which this class of claims is subjected. And I think, if I have the attention of 
Senators, I can demonstrate that I have overstated the amount. I have prepared, 
in tabular form, a statement showing all claims now pending, and the amount of 
them, as well as the number of claims acted on and them amount. The figures 
are as follows : 



Vi * 

o j*> 

£ * •P 

a a »■ 

I * I 

x * “ 

Amount. 

Number al¬ 
lowed j 

Amount. 

£ 

t-i • 

02 Si 

SI o 
g 

g- 

Amount. 

r-} 

a 

a? 

£•*> 
e* a 

a~ 

p 

r A 

Amount. 

Commissary Oren’l. 

6, 096 

$3,312,757 68 

1, 406 

$317,443 54 

4,443 

$2,682,644 16 

247 

$190,527 44 

Quar. Hen’! (up to 









close of fiscal y’r,) 

31,126 

21,319,180 02 

6,257 

2,741,961 67 

13, 522 

9,048,044 57 

11,347 

7,822, 829 5 5 

Quar. Gren’l (since 









Oegitiuiug of fiscal 

1, 000 

700,000 00 





1,000 

700, 000 00 

Coram’r of Claims, 





(Southern Claims 











6!) 25* 150 44 

5 254 

1,794.580 55 


. 

17, 044 

50,033,764 19 


104 

3 500,000 00 




104 

3, 500, 000 00 


500 

Hi 300 000 00 





500 

16, 300, 600 00 

Yet to be presented 

io!000,000 00 






10,000,000 00 

. 






Totals. 

61, 124 115,390,086 14 

— —— 1 

12,917 

4,853,990 76 

17, 965 

11,730,688 75 

30, 242 

86,547, 121 il 


The figures given in the above table are official, as far as the .reports of the 
Commissary-General, Quartermaster-General, and southern claims commission 
are concerned, with the exception of the amount filed in the Quartermaster’s De¬ 
partment since the beginning of the fiscal year. The Quartermaster-General esti¬ 
mates the number of claims received since the beginning of the fiscal year at one 
thousand, but does not give the amount of them. I have estimated the amount 
by taking the claims heretofore presented in that department as the basis. The 
amount of claims pending in the Senate and House of Representatives have 
been prepared by the clerks of the Claims Committees, and have been estimated 
as well as they could be from the data at command, and I have no doubt are 
very nearly correct. I have also allowed $10,050,000 for claims yet to come in, 
and I think that is a full estimate, for it must be^remembered that it is now some 
years since the acts were passed allowing these claims to be presented. 

it will be seen by reference to totals in the report, that 30,882 cases have been 
acted upon, leaving about one-half (30,242) yet to be acted upon. The amount of 
the cases acted upon was $27,033,494.47, and of this amount $4,853,990.76 have 
been allowed ; a little less than one-fifth. Of the $38,547,121.11 yet remaining to 
be acted upon, it is fair to remark: First, that of the 1L.3 47 claims pending up 
to the close of the present fiscal year In the Quartermaster-General’s Department, 
General oleigs says "‘about three-fourths of them have been suspended for want 
of additionaf evidence, (which, in the majority of cases, is tantamount to rejec- 































14 


tion,) which may or may not hereafter be furnished.” This would reduce the 
amount remaining to be acted on in his office to $1,955,707.39. Second, of the 
claims pending' in the House of Representatives, $5,000,000 are for property taken, 
occupied, and destroyed bv the United States as a military necessity in the so- 
called Confederate States, and I am credibly informed that the major part of this 
amount is claimed by those who acted with the confederacy, one claim alone, of 
that character, being for $1,000,000. Also, $2,000,000 of t hose claims are for the 
use of railroads and damages to the same, which are not allowed by the laws now 
in force. This would reduce the amount of claims now pending in all quarters . 
and yet to be presented, as estimated, to some $75,000,000. 

And just here I would like to direct the attention of the Senate to a letter 
from the Secretary of the Treasury to Hon. James G. Blaine, Speaker of the 
House, datedy Februar 18, 1874, (Executive Document No. 146,) from which it 
will be seen that— 

The amount covered into the Treasury of the United States from the sale of 


captured and abandoned property during the war, has been.$20,910,657 44 

Of this there has been expended in payments to claimants and costs. 6,500,227 27 

Lfiaving in the Treasury. 14,410,429 17 

There has been allowed by the Court of Claims something over $1,090,000, 
which has not yet been paid, which comes out of this amount. 


Now, taking the proportion of claims allowed to the amount claimed, and we 
have about one-fifth. Applying this same proportion to the amount yet pend¬ 
ing—some $75,000,000—and we find we have some 815,000,000, which is but little 
more than the amount in the Treasury resulting from the sale of captured and 
abandoned property in the Southern States. But even allowing the whole amount 
of claims yet pending to be such as can properly be considered, and applying the 
proportion as before, we find we will probably have to pay but some $17,700,000- 
in round numbers, which is far below the estimate of '$25,000,000, and to meet 
which there are nearly $14,000,000 now in t lie treasury belonging to that fund. 
So, if there is any reliance to be placed in figures, and it is said -'figures never 
lie,” the fair inference is that $20,000,000 will more than pay every legitimate and 
proper claim of this nature against the Government, and surely this is not an. 
amount sufficient to deter a government from doing what is jusL and righ Howard 
its people. 

Most of the above claims ean be considered under presenflaws by the southern 
claims commission, the Quartermaster-General and the Commissary-General, it 
is estimated that to the present time not more than ten millions has been claimed 
by loyal citizens or States for property taken or destroyed by United States troops 
or agents. Apply the rule and basis heretofore acted upon, three or four millions 
will pay all such claims. 

Some say the Government cannot afford it. What ail answer that to make to 
a man who lias suffered and lost at the hands of the Government he was endeav¬ 
oring to maintain and uphold ! What an answer to yiake to a man who asks, not 
pay for the spoliations of the enemy; not compensation for losses incident to the 
war, but indemnification simply for what his own Government has appropriated 
or destroyed. Sir, no nation can afford to be unjust, least of all ours. This Gov¬ 
ernment wants the respect and good will of its own citizens as well as a good 
credit abroad. The war is over; the effects of the war almost obliterated : indus¬ 
try has resumed its pursuits, and the whole country, seems to be advancing to a 
high state of prosperity. Is it not time to look into these matters 1 have so feebly' 
attempted to describe? We have waited long and patiently, is it not time*Co 
give us our reward ? 

DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PREMISES. 

The duty of this Government is to protect, and it owes protection where it 
exacts allegiance. The fundamental basis of all republican governm-»nts is the 
mutual compact between individuals and the people in a collective capacity, 
represented by the government. 

While it is true that the citizen owes allegiance to the government of which • 
he is the subject, the converse of the proposition is equally true, that the govern¬ 
ment owes protection to the subject. This common unitv of interest! these 
mutual and reciprocal obligations, are what constitute and cement the Union of 
States. Break this strong chain that binds the governed and the governor to¬ 
gether, and the name of government becomes a "mockery, a nonentity. You 
might as well attempt to run an engine without a driving-wheel as to attempt to 
run a government without this reciprocity of interest. And, on the other hand, 





15 


the driving-wheel without the “governor” would suon plaV sad havoc and de¬ 
struction with the machinery of the engine. A government, without a people 
acknowledging their allegiance and claiming its protection, is nothing, and a peo¬ 
ple without a government to protect them and exact their allegiance amount to 
nothing. Each depends upon the other for existence and perpetuity. 

As representing the moral sense of the nation , Congress is bound to do what is 
just , what is equitable , and what is becoming our Christian civilization. While we 
are the custodians of the national treasure , we are also the guardians of the national 
honor. While we are bound to protect the Treasury from the payment of illegal 
claims , we are bound to see that the honor and interests of the people do not suffer. 
When a great and magnanimous nation like this takes from one of its loyal citizens his 
property , and applies it to its own use and benefit , that citizen ought to be paid every 
cent of the value of the property so used. 

Wherever the people in the Southern States preserved their fidelity to their 
Government, they were as free from the rebellion as a loyalist residing in any 
[Northern State, and with much more merit, because the temptation and forces 
that operated so terribly upon them were so much greater. 

Congress has passed several laws, notable among them is the act of July 27,1868, 
relieving officers or agents of the Army from liability to owners of property taken, 
used, or destroyed during the late war. This transfers from the officers or agents 
to Government all liability to pay, <&c., for property taken, or destroyed by United 
States troops or agents. 

When supplies for the Army, or munitions of war, or anything else wanted 
by the Government, were procured or appropriated in the Northern States, they 
were paid for. Nor was any account taken of the loyality or disloyalty of the party 
from whom they were procured. 1 cannot see how any distinction, either in law 
or morals, so far as the obligation of payment is concerned, can be made between 
a purchase and an appropriation from the loyal owner without a direct purchase 
where the Government received the benefit of the thing purchased, or appropriated. 
This, in iny opinion, would he a matter of much more serious contemplation if 
bv the passage of this act, we were establishing a precedent; but this is not the. 
case. We have precedent after precedent of a remarkable uniformity of decision, 
antedating to the earliest history of our own Government, and in older countries 
going back to the time whence “the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” 
I contend that by every principle of justice, by every principle of equity, by every 
principle of honor,by every # principle of common honesty, we cannot escape the 
obligation to pay for property we have taken, used, or destroyed, belonging to a 
loyal citizen or State, and have received the benefit of its use in the support of the 
cause of the Union. 

SPECIAL CLAIMS OF WEST VIRGINIA ON THE GOVERNMENT. 

It seems to me, "Mi*. President, that a more equitable claim could not be pre¬ 
sented to Congress. The State of West Virginia responded patriotically and 
manfully to the call of the' President for troops. She sent to the field some of 
the best soldiers that were ever enrolled in any army. She complied with every 
requisition that was made upon her. The heroic deeds of her soldiery are written 
upon the annals of history, and of their exploits she may well feel justly 
proud. They were ever found where duty called them, and many of her brave 
* sons lie buried where they fell in the discharge of their duty to their country. By 
reference to the records of the War Department it will be seen that West Virginia 
furnished troops to the Federal Government during the war to the number of 
32,003—as large a number, in proportion to her able-bodied population as, any 
Northern State. 

The loyal people of our State, under all their losses and troubles and sufferings, 
never murmured or complained, because they had faith in the proclamations of the 
President and the published addresses of the generals of the Union armies that 
they were considered the friends of the Government, and as such were entitled to 
protection and to remuneration for all property appropriated and used or injured 
or destroyed by the Government, of which the Government received the benefit. 

West Virginia, although destined when her hills and vajleys are densely popu¬ 
lated and her dormant wealth, now lying undeveloped, shall be unearthed, to be 
one of the brightest stars in the crown of States, is yet in her infancy. She 
hashad to incur a heavy expense in the erection of necessary public build¬ 
ings, many of which have been destroyed by the Union armies. Being a 
comparatively new State she needs development. Although she has been sub¬ 
ject to the ravages of both armies; although she has had to undergo toils, 


16 



privations?, and dangers innumerable, she does not come here as an object of charity. 
She comes, asking - as a right that where the Government has received the benefit 
of the subsistence stores, the horses, the cattle, corn, and other articles of food, 
the houses, timber, &c., taken from loyal persons in her borders by its armies, ancl 
where they have used, injured, and destroyed our macadamized roads, churches, 
school-houses, bridges, court-houses, and other public buildings for military pur¬ 
poses, they ought to pay a just compensation for the property so taken, used, de¬ 
stroyed, or injured. I feel that my position in this matter is true and impregnable, 
however unable I may be to do the case justice or to convince those of the Senators 
who may differ with me in the views I have expressed. 

CLOSING REM AUKS. 

It was easy enough to be true to the Government where the storm and fury of 
battle did not rage, where your homes were undisturbed by the shock of arms, 
where it cost nothing to be loyal; but in our country, especially in the earlier days 
of the war, it required principle and moral and physical courage and love and d*e- ' 
votion to the Union to oppose the rebellion. Do we not owe something to the per¬ 
sons who were faithful amid such fiery and terrible crimes? 

I say Mr. President, aud I feel that the country is not only able but will give 
its hearty sanction to the payment of claims of this class. All that will be required 
of us is that we carefully scrutinize these claims and see that none but just claims are 
paid ; and I am willing that the merits of this bill shall be submitted to the closest 
and most careful scrutiny. 

I wish it distinctly understood that our people are willing not only to bear 
their just and equitable proportion of the war debt, but any other expenditure 
necessary to maintain and keep inviolate a republican form of government. But 
we do not think it fair to bear more than our just proportion. We think the losses 
sustained by our loyal people during the war at the hands of the Federal Govern¬ 
ment should be equitably borne by all the States, and not left to fall upon us 
alone. " • * 

Why is it that during the entire period of the war, from the firing p on Fort 
Sumter to the surrender at Appomattox Court-house, we were led to believe by 
the practice of the Federal Government,and by the proclamations of its President 
and generals, that we were considered friends of the Government, and that our 
constitutionally guaranteed rights of protection of our lives and property were • 
sacred in the eyes of the Government? Ah! the Government was in need, and 
when in need it made bountiful promises. But now the war is over, now that 
the victory has been won, now that the perpetuity of the Union is more firmly es¬ 
tablished, if possible, than ever, now that our services, our money, our sacrifices 
are no longer needed, are w r e to be told that the promises made to us -were but 
delusions—promises made to the ear to be. broken to the hope? Are we to be told 
that we have no rights which this nation we helped to save is bound to respect? 
For tile honor of its good name, I trust not. 

We ask the passage of this bill by virtue of our loyalty, tested and proven 
under the most adverse and trying circumstances; b}^ virtue of our sacrifices and 
sufferings on behalf of the Government; by virtue of our having borne our full 
share of the burdens of the Government during the whole war "’and since - bv 
virtue of the pledges given us at .the commencement of and during the war ■ bv 
virtue of the Constitution and the law of the land; by virtue of the Articles of 
War; by virtue of the laws of war which prevailed among the civilized nations of * 
the earth; by virtue of the brave men of our State who laid down their lives a 
willing sacrifice on the altar of their country; by virtue of the precedents estab¬ 
lished at the time of our national independence, and recognized ud to the nrcsent- 
day; by virtue of right and by virtue of justice. 

And now, Mr. President, I owe an apology for the length of my remarks 
which are more lengthy than I had intended to make them, but I found there was 
so much ground to cover, and the subject one in which the people I have the 
honor in part to represent are more interested than perhaps any other i could 
not do my constituency, the merits of the bill, or myself, justice in less’time 1 
feel that tile bill has not only intrinsic merit, but is an eminently just one • and 
if I have failed to present its merits in a proper and convincing liiffit, the default 
must be attributed to the imperfect manner in which l have laid the’ facts before 
you. I trust that Senators will give the subject of this bill, and similar bills and 
the law bearing upon them, their careful and earnest attention, so that justice 
may e (lone to the people of the border and the South, and not let th<» few hear 
the burdens that belong to the many. 

































I 





















































































